User talk:Buster7/Archives/2009/June

Template:Generic tag
This is not as good as yours above, but I'd love to work on it with you. We need something witty that others can use for fun. I'm pushing more buttons than yours above in the one below, but perhaps we can come up with a compromise. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 04:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

PS: See WP:Tag bombing

Alastair Haines (talk) 04:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

An AfD discussion you might be able to help with

 * Articles_for_deletion/List_of_patriarchal_cultures_that_have_been_claimed_to_be_matriarchal Alastair Haines (talk) 05:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

support/oppose/present option
center|350px|right
 * Symbol support vote.svgSupport Universality of Patriarchy....--Buster7 (talk) 23:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

About ROFL
IAR is not a get-out-of-content-policy-free card, as Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means clearly explains. Stop looking for loopholes and cite a source. We've made the effort to raise this article from the terrible depths that it once was in by working toward making it adhere to our verifiability and no original research policies, in part by writing it based upon what sources we can find actually say. Any reversal of that is not an improvement, but a step backwards and counter to the project's goals. So find a reliable source that documents the fact that you assert. Others have put in the effort to find sources with the rest of the article. Anyone wanting this particular content in the article is not exempt from putting in the same effort and writing properly. It says below the every edit box that you see that encyclopaedic content must be verifiable. That is not a warning without teeth. This is verifiability in action. You are actually being held, by other people around you, to the project's standards for content. Find and cite a reliable source that documents what you claim to be true. Uncle G (talk) 17:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * this whole argument is over ONE LETTER! Can we please use this page for more constructive discussions rather than arguing over the letter T? Daniel J Simanek (talk) 08:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The only ridiculous thing here is that although sources have been requested here for at least eight months, no-one wanting this content has put in the effort to find and cite a single one, but instead we have the same request repeated, without sources to back it up, again and again, as if the request for sources to back up the claim will be any different to the last time. Proper article writing requires verifiability, and this is verifiability in action. The Wikipedia editor community as a whole, and individually, requires that content be backed up by sources. You are being challenged to show a source to back up your claim, in the normal way that happens every day at Wikipedia. Repeating the claim does not rise to that challenge. Trying to squirm out of fundamental project policy does not rise to the challenge. Finding and citing a reliable source does. Rise to the challenge and do so. Uncle G (talk) 17:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Internet censorship in PRC
The discussion is not finished, so I think your once again restoring the notice is rather aggressive. Call an RfC if you like, because we all have a right to our opinions, but to keep on reinserting it in the face of opposition like you have just done is, I believe, rather unproductive. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You, or perhaps John Smith, initially deleted my edit....prior to and without discussion. So lets discuss, at Internet censorship in PRC, from the initial point of contact. But I request that my edit stay in place since it speaks exactly and clearly to the threads title...the Green Dam.--Buster7 (talk) 03:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It's just how things work around here - I refer you to WP:BRD. I still don't think it should stay for the reasons already given. I would just say that if I wanted to revert you, I would have done so by now. We should continue discussing this coolly and rationally, not conditional upon something being inserted or deleted (I only want to discuss if I get to keep the ball) ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 04:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:BRD is not a policy or guideline. How I see it is this....By inserting, we all get to see the ball. When it is deleted, the ball disappears. Game Over. That is why I request that my edit stay. It is not vandalism or lying or extravagant. Also, I would prefer to have any discussion of this matter at the article's talk.--Buster7 (talk) 04:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * see:
 * Talk:Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China for further negotiations;--Buster7 (talk) 05:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:3RR warning
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Ohconfucius (talk) 16:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Some editors suggest users are to be treated like mushrooms: "kept in the dark with excrement piled on top for good measure"--Buster7 (talk) 04:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Belgian towns
Yeah, that was a long time ago. That discussion was soo 2004. Yeah, Wikipedia's changed a lot since I began in 2003. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

For your information
Notorious = widely known, especially for something bad; infamous. Abtract (talk) 13:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)